{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Fallon M"],"funding":["Cancer Research UK","Medical Research Council","National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)"],"pagination":["1284-1290"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC5929219"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["36(13)"],"pubmed_abstract":["Purpose Pain is suboptimally managed in patients with cancer. We aimed to compare the effect of a policy of adding a clinician-delivered bedside pain assessment and management tool (Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool [EPAT]) to usual care (UC) versus UC alone on pain outcomes. Patients and Methods In a two-arm, parallel group, cluster randomized (1:1) trial, we observed pain outcomes in 19 cancer centers in the United Kingdom and then randomly assigned the centers to either implement EPAT or to continue UC. The primary outcome was change in the percentage of study participants in each center with a clinically significant (≥ 2 point) improvement in worst pain (using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) from admission to 3 to 5 days after admission. Secondary outcomes included qua"],"journal":["Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology"],"pubmed_title":["Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach-The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool."],"pmcid":["PMC5929219"],"funding_grant_id":["G0800803","NF-SI-0515-10029","C17958/A6823"],"pubmed_authors":["Walker J","Sharpe M","Fallon M","Murray G","Colvin L","Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool Study Group","Rodriguez A"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach-The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool.","description":"Purpose Pain is suboptimally managed in patients with cancer. We aimed to compare the effect of a policy of adding a clinician-delivered bedside pain assessment and management tool (Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool [EPAT]) to usual care (UC) versus UC alone on pain outcomes. Patients and Methods In a two-arm, parallel group, cluster randomized (1:1) trial, we observed pain outcomes in 19 cancer centers in the United Kingdom and then randomly assigned the centers to either implement EPAT or to continue UC. The primary outcome was change in the percentage of study participants in each center with a clinically significant (≥ 2 point) improvement in worst pain (using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) from admission to 3 to 5 days after admission. Secondary outcomes included qua","dates":{"release":"2018-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2018 May","modification":"2025-06-01T03:45:38.778Z","creation":"2025-06-01T03:45:38.778Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC5929219","cross_references":{"pubmed":["29543567"],"doi":["10.1200/JCO.2017.76.1825"]}}